CHEMALAPATI VENKATA REDDY Vs. NATARAJA SETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. The suit was brought in the District Munsif's Court of Madanapalle to recover Rs. 316-5-2 in respect of 9 bags of jaggery delivered to defendant as commission agent on behalf of plaintiff. The District Munsif and the District Judge held that the Madanapalle Court had no jurisdiction. Hence this petition.

(2.) Six or seven years prior to the plaint, the plaintiff went to Madras where he and the defendant " talked and settled about the commission to be paid to him. " He told 1 defendant in Madras that he would consign goods directly to him or to others who would be directed to deliver goods to him. The defendant was afterwards writing letters to plaintiff informing the latter of the current prices prevailing in Madras and suggesting the despatch of goods. In October, 1915 plaintiff sent 18 bags of jaggery to P. S. Abdul Khader Saheb and Brothers at Madras with instructions to deliver 9 of them to the defendant. He also wrote to the defendant asking him to sell them and send the amount. Abdul Khader delivered the bags on 25-10-15 to defendant. On 5-12-15 (Ex. 17) defendant wrote stating that he would send the amount after selling the jaggery. On these facts the Courts below held that the Court of Madanapalle had no jurisdiction.

(3.) Of the cases relied on by the respondent Jivaraju V/s. Purushotam (1883) ILR 7 M 171 was not decided with reference to Section 17 of the Code of 1882 as amended in 1888. In Kamisetti Subbiah V/s. Katha Venkatasamy (1903) ILR 27 M 355 [citing Newcomb V/s. De Ross (1859) 2 E & E 271 ] where the facts are somewhat similar, it was held that the cause of action did not arise in Kurnool but in Madras, the ratio decidendi being that the contract was made at the place where the letter of acceptance was posted. Taylor V/s. Jones (1875) 1 CPD 87 also cited in it was a case in which the facts were peculiar. There though a letter of offer was posted in London no reply accepting it was posted but the goods were delivered in London and obviously the contract came into existence wholly in London. It is true that the making of an offer may be part of the cause of action [see Borthwick V/s. Walton 15 CB 501 and Geeen V/s. Beach LR 8 Exch 208 cited in Appu Thamban V/s. Foulkes (1919) 10 LW 445] but this means not the posting of the offer but the receipt of the offer [see Mylappa Chettiar V/s. Aga Mirza Mohammad Shirazee citing Clark Brothers V/s. Knowles, (1918) 1 KB 128]. In this case, the plaintiff's offer does not help him. But the receipt of the acceptance when the contract is complete is a part of the contract--there being no reason why acceptance should be in a worse position than offer. The English cases in Newcomb V/s. De Ross (1859) 2 E & E 271 and Borthwick V/s. Walton 15 CB 501 are cases under the then County Courts Act, 9 and 10 Vic, c. 60 according to which the whole cause of action must arise within the jurisdiction of the County Courts. No doubt the later case Clark Brothers V/s. Knowles (1918) 1 KB 128 arose on the later County Courts Act 51 and 52 Vic. 43 under which it is enough if part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the County Court. But it does not appear from the affidavit upon which the application was based that any letter of acceptance was received at West Hartlepool. If it can be said on the facts of Mylappa Chettiar V/s. Aga Mirza Mohammad Shirazee 37 MLJ 712 that the defendant's acceptance of plaintiff's offer was ultimately communicated to plaintiff at Negapatam, then the correctness of the decision is doubtful. Nor was any attempt made in the case in Kamisetti Subbiah V/s. Katha Venkatasamy (1903) ILR 27 M 355 to support the Judgment under appeal on the ground that a letter of acceptance was received in Kurnool. But, apart from this ground, it is clear that in this case the money was intended to be paid to the plaintiff at his native place [see Naina Maracayar V/s. Somasundaram Chettiar (1920) 11 LW 593, Robey V/s. Snacfell Mining Company (1878) 20 QB 152 and Bangali Mal V/s. Ganga Ram 71 IC 431] and if so, part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Madanapalle Court. The contract in Comber V/s. Layland (1898) AC 52 is special and peculiar as pointed out in Naina Maracayar V/s. Somasundaram Chettiar (1920) 11 LW 593. On both the grounds above indicated, I reverse the order of the Courts below and direct that the suit be taken on file and disposed of according to law. The respondents must bear the costs of this petitioner in this Court and in the lower appellate Court. The costs in the first Court will abide the result.